Gena Davis institute on Gender in media tries to link violent games to mass shootings and police violence

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,014
1,687
118
Country
United States
That's all very neat information that nonetheless leaves me baffled as to your actual argument in this thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
That's all very neat information that nonetheless leaves me baffled as to your actual argument in this thread
I'm not sure what yours is either apart from the idea that obesity isn't a health issue, in which case, I completely disagree.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,014
1,687
118
Country
United States
The people "raging" about the obesity epidemic tend to be medical professionals. Who the heck are they harassing? Generally, the people who do the harassment and discrimination are everyday people, especially in the school ecosystem.

Also, if you're obese, you're far more at risk from conditions such as cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and various cancers. Living through the pandemic, we've seen this play out in real time, in that being obese makes you far more vulnerable to Covid. The link between obesity and health conditions is sound. In fact, it's so sound that we're living through the first time in human history where more people are dying from heart-related diseases than starvation.
Yeah I know, though the only thing I'm more at risk for is diabetes tests. Not actually diabetes, just the tests. Lungs are good, hearts good, blood pressure is a hair higher than normal, joints are fine, etc.
See, we all know this. How can we not, it's in the comment section anytime there's a photo shown to a crowd. Meanwhile Steve, who's 140lbs and hasn't seen water outside of a shower for three months doesn't get that this sort of "helpful" medical comment.
That's what the "fat acceptance" movement is about. If you're able to move around like Lizzo, you're probably healthier than some gamer twink living off of Mountain Dew and pizza rolls.
I'm not sure what yours is either apart from the idea that obesity isn't a health issue, in which case, I completely disagree.
It's mislabeled
But hey, that's thin culture for you.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Yeah I know, though the only thing I'm more at risk for is diabetes tests. Not actually diabetes, just the tests. Lungs are good, hearts good, blood pressure is a hair higher than normal, joints are fine, etc.
See, we all know this.
Know what? That you're at risk of tests?

How can we not, it's in the comment section anytime there's a photo shown to a crowd. Meanwhile Steve, who's 140lbs and hasn't seen water outside of a shower for three months doesn't get that this sort of "helpful" medical comment.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying there's a tendency for people to comment on people's weight in photos? Um...okay, if you say so. I've already said that being overweight (and obese) compounds health risks, while also stating that they should be free of harassment.

Also, people aren't going to be commenting on Steve, because you can't smell a photo. If Steve's walking around after not-showering for three months, then he probably is going to get comments.

That's what the "fat acceptance" movement is about. If you're able to move around like Lizzo, you're probably healthier than some gamer twink living off of Mountain Dew and pizza rolls.
The fat acceptance movement may have some worthy goals (such as decreasing stigma), but there's plenty of issues with it, namely the normalization of being overweight or obese. Which in turn can lead to some kooky arguments such as how body fat is good for you because it makes you less vulnerable to cold-related conditions. Even if that's true, it doesn't remove the risk of excessive fat.

And no idea who Lizzo is.

It's mislabeled
But hey, that's thin culture for you.
I haven't mentioned BMI. I agree, BMI has some issues, especially if the weight comes from muscle rather than fat, but it's still a handy guide. And it doesn't matter how we feel about being fat, or obese, the correlation between excessive fat and increased health risks are clear.

And yes, thin culture may probably exist, and it does have body positivity issues, but we aren't dealing with an epidemic of underweight people, we're dealing with an epidemic of overweight people, and it's only getting worse.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,084
595
118
Country
United Kingdom
First, the person claiming that heterosexuals believe that there's something distinctive about them is the person on this thread that isn't heterosexual, while every heterosexual is saying the opposite, so you might want to stop and consider that.
How are you so sure that I'm not a heterosexual?

What qualities about me exclude me from the category of heterosexuality? What qualities would I need to have in order to fit into the category of heterosexuality?

What makes a heterosexual distinct from someone else, for example someone like me?

This is borderline semantics though. By the standards you're laying out, no kind of sexuality could ever exist, because no-one would conform to it 100% of the time.
It could, people would just have to make it exist through their actions, which is probably what actually happens.

This is what I mean by gender ideology. Much as I've used the word fiction, it's not a straightforward lie. Heterosexuality exists in people's minds, and thus they make it real.

We all try and repress feelings that don't fit with our sense of who we are, whatever that is. You can hide a lot of thoughts and feelings from yourself without even realising you're doing it. I know because I was straight once. I maintained that fiction pretty well, right up until the point where I couldn't.

If everyone acted on the sexual desire they felt in the moment, sexual assault would probably go through the roof, for starters.
Is sexual assault something you think people generally desire?

No, your argument is on the level of identity, mine's on the level of categorization.
Categorization of what?

Again, you seem to be describing bro culture rather than "heterosexual culture."
No I'm not.

Look, I didn't want to use the word topping, because I realise that for men at least topping is heavily bound up with penetration, and I'm not just talking about penetration or even just sex. But let's run with it for a second.

Most sexual acts between two people will tend to limit the movement of one partner more than the other, meaning that the unrestricted partner generally has to take on a more active role, or to take care not to hurt the partner who is less able to move. In that sense, there often is a kind of natural active and passive position in sex, with the active partner having a bit more control and in return (hopefully) taking on a bit more responsibility. This is largely true regardless of the sex of the people involved.

And because it will be misconstrued; I do not mean dominance. Dominance is a kind of overt, usually playful power dynamic within the sexual act. It's about which partner tells the other what to do or otherwise plays the role of the person in charge. Here I'm talking about the more immediate and implicit control over the physical mechanics of the act itself. The two will often align, but they don't have to.

In reality topping is very seldom as organic as I've described, because once again, topping and bottoming have (at least in many contexts) become identities. They've taken on all kinds of weird cultural meaning about what kind of person you are, and thus they've become to some extent divorced from what you actually do. The gays are as guilty of this as anyone (perhaps more so).

And before the inevitable "but straight people don't even think about whether they're a top or a bottom". No. They don't. That's actually my point. Straights absolutely don't think about how topping relates to their identity, not because they don't top or bottom, but because doing so is so gendered that the default assumption is almost always that men are tops and women are bottoms. Again, this is not just about intercourse. Men initiate kisses more, men do more touching and caressing, women make more noises to show arousal or enjoyment. That's still topping and bottoming.

On top of this, there is also that implicit assumption of male dominance. The reason I haven't talked about that is because a lot of the time it's not really visible, but it tends to come into play, in particular, when women top men. Straight male fantasies often place a very high value on being topped (for example by receiving oral sex) but the assumed power dynamic is always that the man retains overall control even if he's not the one doing the work. The ability to persuade a woman out of her default state of bottomness is, in and of itself, sometimes framed as a kind of power over her, because the assumption is that it's something she doesn't want to do and would only do because she really was that into you.

None of this is "bro culture", none of it assumes any particularly misogynistic attitude on the part of the men involved. In fact, it somewhat assumes that men are highly motivated and interested in their partner's enjoyment, because that's part of topping. Men can definitely be sexually selfish, but nowadays it tends to be a bit less overt. One really surprising finding, for example, is that a very high number of straight women don't enjoy receiving oral sex, and the most common reason is that they feel it's not really something that happens for their benefit but rather something men do to prove that they are skilled and generous lovers, which in turn puts pressure on women to respond enthusiastically even if it's really not working. In that case, the 'selfishness' is the product of an normalized power dynamic inhibiting communication, not men being "bros".

Anyway, I'm not really enjoying explaining how sex works, can we move on to something else?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,084
595
118
Country
United Kingdom
You've focused on intercourse, I gave you an example of lack of intercourse.
I'm pretty sure I haven't focused on intercourse..

One example of me not focusing on intercourse was bringing up this example, which as you've said does not involve any intercourse.

And again, that's all that seems to matter.
I mean, we're talking about the filmic language around sex, so yes.

The other stuff would matter if we were talking about the plot or the themes.

You're responding to the question of "Is "pandering" simply the depiction of relationships?", when my VERY NEXT SENTENCE was "Regrettably, I've seen the argument applied to same-sex relationships, where their mere presence is decried by idiots as a form of "pandering."
So, if you look a bit deeper, my entire argument here is actually that I don't actually care about pandering. I don't think pandering is a problem most of the time, because if putting queer characters in a story without extensive narrative justification is "pandering", then all pandering really means is doing something to make a section of the audience feel seen or happy.

What I care about is straight people being "pandered" to literally all the time, not being aware of it because it's so incredibly normalized, and then pointing to the one, singular scene that stands out precisely because it is coded a bit weirdly and declaring that this shows they're not okay with being pandered to.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
How are you so sure that I'm not a heterosexual?
I'm pretty sure you've stated it outright, such as only dating bisexual people or something, plus have had detailed conversations with Silvanus on the matter of bisexuality and homosexuality.

Even if you didn't confirm it below, I'd think it would be a reasonable guess.

What qualities about me exclude me from the category of heterosexuality? What qualities would I need to have in order to fit into the category of heterosexuality?
If you were solely attracted to the opposite sex, you'd be heterosexual. If you're not, then you might fit into another category.

If you consider that an identity, that's your business.

What makes a heterosexual distinct from someone else, for example someone like me?
See above.

Also, "distinct" isn't the word I'd use. There's nothing "distinct" about opposite-sex attraction because it's the default that most humans, heck, most species, operate on. If heterosexuals start thinking of themselves as "distinct," then you get nonsense like the straight pride parade.

Is sexual assault something you think people generally desire?
No, the outcome.

You mentioned everyone acting on their sexual desire. In the context of the moment, that would mean a lot more permiscuousness. Put a few drinks in someone, and they can act on it. Heck, a lot of people don't even have that excuse (mostly males).

Anyway, I'm not really enjoying explaining how sex works, can we move on to something else?
Yes, my eyes glazed over reading that, thanks.

So, if you look a bit deeper, my entire argument here is actually that I don't actually care about pandering. I don't think pandering is a problem most of the time, because if putting queer characters in a story without extensive narrative justification is "pandering", then all pandering really means is doing something to make a section of the audience feel seen or happy.

What I care about is straight people being "pandered" to literally all the time, not being aware of it because it's so incredibly normalized, and then pointing to the one, singular scene that stands out precisely because it is coded a bit weirdly and declaring that this shows they're not okay with being pandered to.
For the first part, I agree, as I've said, I don't think the mere presence of something is pandering in of itself.

However, for the second part, I disagree. I've explained why up above, and in the context of this post, I'll do it here.

First, the reasons why most people dislike the scene has nothing to do with pandering. I realize that's arguably a bit big of me to speak for a bunch of people, but the issues I laid out with it before, but I'll do it here (again). So:

1: There's no reason for it. The scene does nothing to advance the plot or characters. We already know that Neo and Trinity are a couple at this point, and even if you go into Reloaded without seeing the first film, it's still established via the elevator scene. Not my favourite scene, but it establishes what it needs to reasonably quickly - that these two characters are an item, and that they're kind of horn-dogs. The sex scene does nothing to establish what we don't already know.

2: The movie just kind of...stops, for it. I went into further detail earlier above, but the whole rave scene is the movie slowing down, in a movie that has significant pacing issues for the reasons I laid out before. And while there may be some debate on the first point, I don't think there's much debate on the second. In my experience, people generally don't like the rave scene, nor the Zion scenes in general, and if I say that Reloaded has pacing issues, I don't think that's a controversial statement.

Second, even if someone enjoys being pandered to, that doesn't make the scene itself GOOD, for the reasons I described above. Again, I'll go with ThaddeusxJune from Final Flight of the Osiris. Is their scantily-clad swordfight pandering? Yes. Is it pandering to me? Yes. Do I enjoy it? No. But I'll grant that it's not as egregious as Neo and Trinity as these are two new characters (so there's more of an onus to establish their characters and dynamics, even if the dynamics themselves are sexualized), and it simply doesn't go on as long. But even then, it's a waste of time, because when Thaddeus kisses June before she goes into the Matrix, as they both know that this will be the last time they see each other again...that says more in a few seconds than the entire opening scene of Final Flight (that these two are close with each other), and is more powerful a moment. Not an original type of moment, but I'll take it over "swords cutting off clothing."

Also, bear in mind that pandering can apply to anything, such as the presence of characters, or elements in a story. To use a common example, C-3PO and R2-D2 in the prequel trilogy. The presence of these two require some contortions in regards to the original trilogy, to the extent that C-3PO requires a mind wipe for things to sync up. Does their presence contort things? Yes. Is it pandering? Arguably, yes - just like Chewie's cameo in Revenge of the Sith is. But when you consider the popularity of these characters, then their presence does make sense from a production perspective. Whether you appreciate their presence or resent it is up to you, but it's still a form of pandering (or fan service, to use a more common phrase). Personally, I don't mind their presence, but I can appreciate the contortions required for it.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,084
595
118
Country
United Kingdom
If you were solely attracted to the opposite sex, you'd be heterosexual. If you're not, then you might fit into another category.
Those two things are distinct from each other. You literally just demonstrated it when you distinguished between them.

This is infuriating.

Also, "distinct" isn't the word I'd use. There's nothing "distinct" about opposite-sex attraction because it's the default that most humans, heck, most species, operate on. If heterosexuals start thinking of themselves as "distinct," then you get nonsense like the straight pride parade.
If you don't think that straights think of themselves as distinct, go and ask them how their [insert same sex partner here] is, and see how they react.

Straight pride is nonsense because the straights have no shame. That sounds like a joke, but it's also true.

Every day, straight people get to get up, dress in their straightest outfits and go out and rub their heterosexuality in everyone's faces. That's not a special occasion for straight people, it's just every day.

You mentioned everyone acting on their sexual desire.
I genuinely don't know what point you think you're trying to make here.

People act on their sexual desires all the time. Acting on your sexual desires does not mean doing things you don't want to do, having no social awareness, or being possessed by some random urge to sexually assault people.

Yes, my eyes glazed over reading that, thanks.
Cool, just stop this pretence that you don't understand what I'm talking about in terms of the social and sexual dynamics of heterosexual relationships (or sexual ideology, for that matter), otherwise I'm just going to refer you back to that post.

First, the reasons why most people dislike the scene has nothing to do with pandering.
I know.

You're the one who decided that this scene was pandering, that it was badly done and that the writers were trying to appeal to your sexuality. See:

If you want an example where it isn't well done, take the sex scene in the second film during the Zion rave. It's a waste of time, it's pandering, it's shot really weird, and I really have no idea what the writers were doing apart from thinking "you like sex, right?"
My point has only ever been to suggest that maybe that's not what the writers were doing, or at least that maybe it's not all they were doing, and that the reason this scene gets picked up on might just be specifically because it doesn't appeal to the people you're claiming it's trying to pander to. If it did, do you really think anyone would care about any other supposed flaws?

There's no reason for it. The scene does nothing to advance the plot or characters.
Why are you trying to put me in the position of defending the cinematic virtues of a film I don't really like? My point was about the representation of sexuality, now you've decided you don't want to talk about sexuality any more, so why are we still talking?

At the same time though this also annoys on principle because.. well.. film is an audiovisual medium and the Matrix trilogy are action movies. There are many scenes in the trilogy that don't focus on advancing the plot and characters. Heck, there's the scene where Neo meets Seraph and they just have a fight for no reason. A film deviating into spectacle just to make the audience feel a certain way is normal, that's kind of what film does.

The people who made the Matrix clearly loved dance music. They got Juno Reactor to collaborate on the score. If you're pushing me to talk about that scene in general, I would read it as an expression of their feelings about dance music and its significance in their lives, and the audience I think it's 'pandering' to is the audience who feels the same way.

In this sense, it's not really as meaningless as you're saying. Like, there's a really strong visual contrast between Zion and the Matrix. Zion is yellow. The Matrix is green. Zion has soft lighting. The Matrix has harsh dramatic lighting. What's really neat about this is what happens to people. In the Matrix, everyone looks washed out and grey, and their faces look angular. In Zion, everyone looks red and soft. It's a cute little way of conveying that theme of dehumanization visually. Zion is human. The Matrix is inhuman. And this is relevant because the rave scene is even more yellow, even more human, than the rest of Zion. It ties in with the opening dialogue too.

Then there's the fact that all the clubs in the Matrix are fetish clubs. Neo and Trinity have their first meeting in a fetish club, but since the first movie was too subtle about it the Merovingian (a creepy pseudo-aristocratic man who doesn't believe in free will and gets off on control) literally owns a fetish club in revolutions. It is a not very subtle way of conveying that the Matrix is all about power and domination. Even the nightlife is about power and domination. Even the sex is about power and domination. The rave scene is clearly meant to be a contrast to that

I haven't thought about these films for years. That was like 2 minutes of thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Those two things are distinct from each other. You literally just demonstrated it when you distinguished between them.

This is infuriating.
What two things? That isn't even "two things," I mentioned "another category," not "the other category."

If you don't think that straights think of themselves as distinct, go and ask them how their [insert same sex partner here] is, and see how they react.
Probably something like "excuse me? or "pardon?" Which is something anyone would say if some random went up to them and asked them about that kind of personal stuff. It would be the same reaction if I asked them about an opposite-sex partner, or any family member, because not only am I assuming that they have such a thing, but the fact that I'm randomly asking people I don't know such questions would probably be the first issue to deal with.

Straight pride is nonsense because the straights have no shame. That sounds like a joke, but it's also true.

Every day, straight people get to get up, dress in their straightest outfits and go out and rub their heterosexuality in everyone's faces. That's not a special occasion for straight people, it's just every day.
Yep. "Straight outfits" are a thing. Just like "queer outfits" are.

Fitting that we're discussing the Matrix as well, because the rabbit hole you're living in is quite deep.

I genuinely don't know what point you think you're trying to make here.

People act on their sexual desires all the time. Acting on your sexual desires does not mean doing things you don't want to do, having no social awareness, or being possessed by some random urge to sexually assault people.
To quote your own post: " Imagine if people never really thought about the type of person they wanted to have sex with in abstract terms, and instead only acted based on the sexual desire that they felt in the moment."

You framed it "in the moment," I answered. Now you've cut it out and reframed your argument.

Yes, I agree that acting on sexual desire wouldn't mean that, but that's not what you proposed.

Cool, just stop this pretence that you don't understand what I'm talking about in terms of the social and sexual dynamics of heterosexual relationships (or sexual ideology, for that matter), otherwise I'm just going to refer you back to that post.
I don't understand what you're talking about because your entire thesis is nonsensical. The very post I'm responding to is nonsensical. I actually read that post again and it comes off as some kind of porn or fetish manual. It's actually even more bizzare, because you basically give all the interactions of sexual intercourse, then say "none of this is bro culture." Of course it isn't, because nothing you've described pertains to bro culture. It's like me describing sexual positions, then saying "none of this is geek culture." Of course it isn't.

I know.

You're the one who decided that this scene was pandering, that it was badly done and that the writers were trying to appeal to your sexuality. See:

My point has only ever been to suggest that maybe that's not what the writers were doing, or at least that maybe it's not all they were doing, and that the reason this scene gets picked up on might just be specifically because it doesn't appeal to the people you're claiming it's trying to pander to. If it did, do you really think anyone would care about any other supposed flaws?
I've listed multiple times why I don't think the scene works that well beyond pandering, and why a lot of other people don't as well.

If you believe deep down that the only reason I don't like that scene is because of "failed pandering," and that I'm lying about every other reason I don't think it works, and why other people generally don't, that's your prerogative.

Why are you trying to put me in the position of defending the cinematic virtues of a film I don't really like? My point was about the representation of sexuality, now you've decided you don't want to talk about sexuality any more, so why are we still talking?
I've never wanted to talk about sexuality, but you've forced it into the conversation, so that leaves me at a crossroads.

At the same time though this also annoys on principle because.. well.. film is an audiovisual medium and the Matrix trilogy are action movies. There are many scenes in the trilogy that don't focus on advancing the plot and characters. Heck, there's the scene where Neo meets Seraph and they just have a fight for no reason. A film deviating into spectacle just to make the audience feel a certain way is normal, that's kind of what film does.
I agree.

Since you're good at looking back at my old posts, you might want to look at where I mentioned about the plot stopping for the machine invasion of Zion as well. As cool as the scene is, the plot basically stops for it to happen.

As for Neo and Seraph fighting, I agree, the fight isn't really needed, but it goes on for about a minute, so this isn't a good equivalent. Also, as you said, the Matrix movies are action movies, so stopping for action is more reasonable (IMO) than stopping for sex.

The people who made the Matrix clearly loved dance music. They got Juno Reactor to collaborate on the score. If you're pushing me to talk about that scene in general, I would read it as an expression of their feelings about dance music and its significance in their lives, and the audience I think it's 'pandering' to is the audience who feels the same way.

In this sense, it's not really as meaningless as you're saying. Like, there's a really strong visual contrast between Zion and the Matrix. Zion is yellow. The Matrix is green. Zion has soft lighting. The Matrix has harsh dramatic lighting. What's really neat about this is what happens to people. In the Matrix, everyone looks washed out and grey, and their faces look angular. In Zion, everyone looks red and soft. It's a cute little way of conveying that theme of dehumanization visually. Zion is human. The Matrix is inhuman. And this is relevant because the rave scene is even more yellow, even more human, than the rest of Zion. It ties in with the opening dialogue too.

Then there's the fact that all the clubs in the Matrix are fetish clubs. Neo and Trinity have their first meeting in a fetish club, but since the first movie was too subtle about it the Merovingian (a creepy pseudo-aristocratic man who doesn't believe in free will and gets off on control) literally owns a fetish club in revolutions. It is a not very subtle way of conveying that the Matrix is all about power and domination. Even the nightlife is about power and domination. Even the sex is about power and domination. The rave scene is clearly meant to be a contrast to that

I haven't thought about these films for years. That was like 2 minutes of thinking.
I generally agree with this, or at the least, I can see where you're coming from. You might want to look at my earlier posts where I gave the most generous interpretation I could of the Zion scene (the "spirit of humanity" idea), and we're not far off. I don't think it achieves it that well (or at least, spends too much time on it), but I can see the creators' possible intentions, and your take is an erudite one.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,410
404
88
Country
United States
The author of this paper is a total trash bag. There should be a diversity of games in sexualization ranging from a lot to none. But nope, It's this hive-mind thinking that has infected progressives, liberals, and many socialists. At this point, the non-economic left, and social liberals are just pretending to be diverse. You can't have a diversity of thought, diversity of media content, diversity of speech. You can have a diversity of skin color, and diversity of lived experiences. Stop cherrypicking diversity. As long as it doesn't harm people in the first order, what difference does it make that a female character has a short skirt?

Some random may be weird for exploring Loverslab, dead or alive 5 or 6, and any number of Japanese & Korean games, and anime and other pop culture. But are they really more harmful than someone who has bad applied views in regard to consent?

As someone who plays games from Last of US 2, Mass Effect, COD, Battlefield, Bethesda modded games, and more I love the diversity of games, characters, opinions, and races in games. What I don't like is this puritanism in games. Given that people are having less sex, and getting married at later ages, I would argue softcore porn, and hardcore porn is perfect to fill the gap.

Sadly corpos are waging war on hardcore porn, and SJWs on softcore porn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Cicada 5

Elite Member
May 1, 2020
1,233
170
68
Country
Nigeria
The author of this paper is a total trash bag. There should be a diversity of games in sexualization ranging from a lot to none. But nope, It's this hive-mind thinking that has infected progressives, liberals, and many socialists. At this point, the non-economic left, and social liberals are just pretending to be diverse. You can't have a diversity of thought, diversity of media content, diversity of speech. You can have a diversity of skin color, and diversity of lived experiences. Stop cherrypicking diversity. As long as it doesn't harm people in the first order, what difference does it make that a female character has a short skirt?

Some random may be weird for exploring Loverslab, dead or alive 5 or 6, and any number of Japanese & Korean games, and anime and other pop culture. But are they really more harmful than someone who has bad applied views in regard to consent?

As someone who plays games from Last of US 2, Mass Effect, COD, Battlefield, Bethesda modded games, and more I love the diversity of games, characters, opinions, and races in games. What I don't like is this puritanism in games. Given that people are having less sex, and getting married at later ages, I would argue softcore porn, and hardcore porn is perfect to fill the gap.

Sadly corpos are waging war on hardcore porn, and SJWs on softcore porn.
And yet, the mere existence of video games where the women are portrayed with modest designs or as being more muscular than usual is enough for a voice actress to receive death threats and fans to spread rumors and lies about its director.

Never mind that for all the bitching about sexiness disappearing from games you've got Ada's much more sexual design in the remake of Resident Evil 2 and Mortal Kombat 11's two female characters with ass attacks.

If you want to talk about how diversity of thought isn't allowed, look at the way people reacted to Last of Us 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,170
1,842
118
Country
United Kingdom
The author of this paper is a total trash bag. There should be a diversity of games in sexualization ranging from a lot to none. But nope, It's this hive-mind thinking that has infected progressives, liberals, and many socialists. At this point, the non-economic left, and social liberals are just pretending to be diverse. You can't have a diversity of thought, diversity of media content, diversity of speech. You can have a diversity of skin color, and diversity of lived experiences. Stop cherrypicking diversity. As long as it doesn't harm people in the first order, what difference does it make that a female character has a short skirt?
Uhrm, right, but the issue isn't that a female character has a short skirt. The issue is that an enormous number have overly sexualised outfits, to the point where it's become insipid and overbearingly common.

This is a numbers game. A single example isn't an issue. A preponderance is. And an appeal to diversity should support efforts to diversify how female characters look, rather than defending those who want to churn out the same sexualised thing over and over, that we've already had a thousand times.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,410
404
88
Country
United States
Uhrm, right, but the issue isn't that a female character has a short skirt. The issue is that an enormous number have overly sexualised outfits, to the point where it's become insipid and overbearingly common.

This is a numbers game. A single example isn't an issue. A preponderance is. And an appeal to diversity should support efforts to diversify how female characters look, rather than defending those who want to churn out the same sexualised thing over and over, that we've already had a thousand times.
But there has been a downward trend in that stuff, and literally, any female character with any degree of a feminine design comes out like Dead Or Alive 5 and 6, or any anime game there has been outrage from reviewers, tweets, and likely emails among insiders to censor.


I am for all types of games, but the goal of a feminist isn't just less sexualized outfits, it's no feminine designs whatsoever. And then they will move on to another topic like violence in video games because toxic masculinity is bad, and war is bad.

And yet, the mere existence of video games where the women are portrayed with modest designs or as being more muscular than usual is enough for a voice actress to receive death threats and fans to spread rumors and lies about its director.

Never mind that for all the bitching about sexiness disappearing from games you've got Ada's much more sexual design in the remake of Resident Evil 2 and Mortal Kombat 11's two female characters with ass attacks.

If you want to talk about how diversity of thought isn't allowed, look at the way people reacted to Last of Us 2.
I actually like Last of Us 2. and I don't play Mortal Kombat. But read the journal article i just posted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,170
1,842
118
Country
United Kingdom
But there has been a downward trend in that stuff, and literally, any female character with any degree of a feminine design comes out like Dead Or Alive 5 and 6, or any anime game there has been outrage from reviewers, tweets, and likely emails among insiders to censor.
There's some fringe whining about every artistic decision ever. If they covered up, some fringe right-wingers would complain that they weren't getting their sexy outfitted women.

The majority of sensibly designed female game characters do not cause any significant amount of "outrage".

I am for all types of games, but the goal of a feminist isn't just less sexualized outfits, it's no feminine designs whatsoever.
This obviously depends on the feminist. I'm a feminist, and I don't want that.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,014
1,687
118
Country
United States
Yeah no, this is less a slippery slope argument and more a water slide.

Most anime games get shit reviews because most anime games are 5/10 piles of barely workable drek coasting by on name recognition and/or sexy children. Most of the "outrage" is manufactured: we knew the third DoAX beach volleyball game wasn't getting a localized NA release for months before Play Asia decided to pander to the culture warriors and create an outrage. Because even by the standards of DoAX beach volleyball games, it was shit. The devs knew it wasn't gonna sell enough to be worth the import costs.

Like, dude: you live in a world where "AAA" games have full blown sex scenes and Nintendo has neutered hentai VNs in its eshop, but Tifa in a sports bra or not being able to upskirt high school girls in a high school is gonna be the first nail in the coffin? Come the fuck on with that.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,084
595
118
Country
United Kingdom
What two things? That isn't even "two things," I mentioned "another category," not "the other category."
"Heterosexual" and "not-heterosexual" are two things.

Not heterosexual may be a "category" that includes other things, but for the purposes of this argument, those are two things.

Just like "queer outfits" are.
Of course they are.

When some straggot verbally harasses you in the street for "looking gay", what do you think they're responding to?

Straight outfits don't exist, of course, that was a joke, almost all clothes are normatively straight.

You framed it "in the moment," I answered. Now you've cut it out and reframed your argument.
"..the desire they felt in the moment."

Do you ever feel sexual desire outside of the moment you're in? Do you ever see someone you think is smoking hot and think "wow, I'm going to be totally into them in 3 weeks."

But okay, since you found that confusing let me rephrase. What if everyone based their decisions about who they were attracted to and wanted to sleep with not on some internalized sense of what sexual category they fall into (which is identity, by the way) but rather on how they felt at the specific time when the possibility became available.

I actually read that post again and it comes off as some kind of porn or fetish manual.
I mean, it's a pretty basic description of how sex works, and how sexual and relationship dynamics function as a cultural baggage around sexual acts and indeed sexual relationships. You were the one insisting that I was talking about fetish stuff ("domination") when I talked about "active" and "passive" roles earlier, you were the one who insisted I was talking about "bro culture" rather than "heterosexual culture" and insisting that most straights never do stuff like this. What on earth did you expect if not an explanation?

Sexual dynamics structure the way people physically behave around people they are in a sexual relationship with or are attracted to. When we see couples acting out intimacy in films, the dynamics of their interaction alters the way we see them. For example, compare the way Neo kisses Persephone with the way Neo and Trinity kiss in the elevator (and the fact that I've phrased it that way is giving it away). When Neo kisses Persephone, he is topping. He leans in for the kiss, she parts her lips a bit. He is actively doing the kissing, and she is receptive. It's an extremely gendered kiss between a man and a woman acting out conventional male and female roles. When Trinity and Neo kiss, they both kind of throw themselves at each other. They each put their hand on the back of the other's neck, which is a pretty strong gesture. There's no clear top and bottom. It's not weird, it doesn't register as overtly the "wrong" way to kiss, but it's also much less gendered. It's not unheard of or weird to see straight kisses depicted that way, but it is far more indicative of the way you'd shoot a same-sex kiss (without a clear masculine/feminine dynamic).

And that carries on through the whole series. It's not a one off.

If you believe deep down that the only reason I don't like that scene is because of "failed pandering," and that I'm lying about every other reason I don't think it works, and why other people generally don't, that's your prerogative.
That's not my point.

My point is about whether that scene is pandering at all. I think your arguments for not liking the scene are fine. I don't think I like it either (although I don't seem to find it as obnoxious as you do) but you specifically stated that you felt the scene was pandering to straights. My argument is that I disagree, and I wonder if part of the reason you registered that scene in particular as pandering is precisely because it didn't actually pander to you, because it's not very effective as a heterosexual fantasy.

It was a very, very small point though, and I'm happy to drop it.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,244
1,307
118
The author of this paper is a total trash bag. There should be a diversity of games in sexualization ranging from a lot to none. But nope, It's this hive-mind thinking that has infected progressives, liberals, and many socialists. At this point, the non-economic left, and social liberals are just pretending to be diverse. You can't have a diversity of thought, diversity of media content, diversity of speech. You can have a diversity of skin color, and diversity of lived experiences. Stop cherrypicking diversity. As long as it doesn't harm people in the first order, what difference does it make that a female character has a short skirt?

Some random may be weird for exploring Loverslab, dead or alive 5 or 6, and any number of Japanese & Korean games, and anime and other pop culture. But are they really more harmful than someone who has bad applied views in regard to consent?

As someone who plays games from Last of US 2, Mass Effect, COD, Battlefield, Bethesda modded games, and more I love the diversity of games, characters, opinions, and races in games. What I don't like is this puritanism in games. Given that people are having less sex, and getting married at later ages, I would argue softcore porn, and hardcore porn is perfect to fill the gap.

Sadly corpos are waging war on hardcore porn, and SJWs on softcore porn.
I don't exactly get what you're getting at here; that there's less sexual diversity in games now then there was before? Because games have always had typically one setting when it came to sexualization, and it tended to be '11'. And always of the heterosexual and hourglass figure variety, with the only diversity being hair color.

This year we had giant vampire milf which everyone went ga-ga for, last year we had Tifa, Aerth, and Jill Valentine, the year before that was DMC5. Where exactly are these less femine or sexualized designs in games, other than TLoU2 which is only deemed not sexualized because one - count it; one - woman was butch.

Not to mention that trends actually change, and that (western) AAA games try to sell themselves more on story now than on blatant sex appeal. This was already happening with the first Uncharted having a very normal looking woman as the female lead, eventhough Naughty Dog's previous franchise had three skimpily clad, round-breasted elf girls as love interests. Things change, and not due to the iron fist of puritanical feminists, but because priorities for game developement change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terminal Blue

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,410
404
88
Country
United States
There's some fringe whining about every artistic decision ever. If they covered up, some fringe right-wingers would complain that they weren't getting their sexy outfitted women.

The majority of sensibly designed female game characters do not cause any significant amount of "outrage".



This obviously depends on the feminist. I'm a feminist, and I don't want that.
It's not fringe. When it's entire media outlets attacking Dead Or Alive 5 and 6. That's if CNN or MSNBC decided to attack pens, but you call it fringe.

Edit: Also the numerous journal articles from gender study professors about hyper-sexualization in games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble
Apr 11, 2020
266
36
33
It's not fringe. When it's entire media outlets attacking Dead Or Alive 5 and 6. That's if CNN or MSNBC decided to attack pens, but you call it fringe.

Edit: Also the numerous journal articles from gender study professors about hyper-sexualization in games.
Games like DoA5, Senran Kagura, Xenoblade, sex games/mods etc. are probably not even 1% of the market. Complaining about it and the people who play them just outs you as a prude because you're not there to argue representation, you're just there to complain about content that is creepy and not socio-normative. That's most of the journalist/twitter outrage.

If you're complaining about something like there being not enough non-skimpy armor sets in WoW or something I will take you seriously, but with the way things are going with Blizzard all female characters are going to be turned into bowls of fruit anyways.

Some random may be weird for exploring Loverslab, dead or alive 5 or 6, and any number of Japanese & Korean games, and anime and other pop culture. But are they really more harmful than someone who has bad applied views in regard to consent?
No, and if someone is going to call you a horny teenager degenerate misogynist creep because you like those things then you should immediately throw their opinion in the trash. You have no reason to respect their opinion when they can't even respect you as a person.